§ Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the creation of a constituency to be known as St. Stephen's and represented by Mr. Speaker.This is not remotely personal, in that it affects you, Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Speaker Thomas, as opposed to Mr. Speaker generally. The newspapers report that you, Mr. Speaker, are considering not standing after the next election—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It is grossly discourteous for the hon. Gentleman to refer to my personal position. I ask him to desist from doing so without a motion on the Order Paper.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)He is trying to get hold of your seat. It is scandalous.
§ Mr. FreudNo discourtesy was intended, Mr. Speaker. I personally hope that you remain Mr. Speaker for life and that you live for ever.
My proposed Bill provides a rare opportunity for discussing a problem before it arises. The problem is that in the current political climate the re-election of a Speaker, particularly a new Speaker, would be contested, and particularly contested in the event of one who does not have the publicity of having been in office. It would mean that the Member appointed by his fellow Members to sit above them and to keep in order their proceedings in a non-party political context, would fight committed political policies with the counter-punch of: "Good afternoon, I am Mr. Speaker. I hope that I may be certain of your vote." It works terribly well with a record of achievement. It is, however, less eloquent persuasion coming from a new Speaker. If Parliament elects a Speaker, it would be wrong for the people of Croydon, Chelmsford, Canterbury and Cambridge—I mention only four towns that begin with the letter "C"—to support hon. Members in their considered choice.
My Bill would isolate Mr. Speaker from political controversy. It would enfranchise his electorate. In a democracy it is the right of an elector to pronounce on the chief political, international and economic affairs of the day. While Mr. Speaker's seat is a representative one, those he represents are deprived of the opportunity of expressing their opinion on the important issues of the day.
This is not a new Bill, which is perhaps an earnest of its merit. A number of previous attempts to bring about a change in the procedure have been made in Parliament, in Committees and in conferences. Perhaps the last that will be remembered was made in April 1963. It is especially memorable because it was moved by Mr. Richard Marsh and because permission was given for it to be introduced after the tellers mistook the "Ayes" for the "Noes". That permission was rescinded the following day.
As the matter has been argued previously, I should like to explain the standard arguments that are used against this measure. The first is that if one appoints a Speaker to a nominal constituency without an electorate, how does one get rid of him when one wants to get rid of him? Will he, like the poor, remain around? The answer is that when hon. Members elect a successor to a Speaker, the Speaker goes. That is the intention of the Bill.
The question is asked, "Why stop at creating a constituency for one Speaker?" Why not create 752 constituencies for the Chairman of Ways and Means and for the Deputy Chairman? Why not create a constituency of St. George, of St. David or St. Denis? This is a specious debating point. We have one Queen, one Prime Minister and one Archbishop each of Canterbury and York. We have one Lord President of the Council. The office of Mr. Speaker comes sixth in the league table of offices of State and is held by one person.
§ Mr. SkinnerGet back to the roulette wheel.
§ Mr. FreudAnother argument is that if Mr. Speaker represented a special seat he would cease, on the loss of his office, to be an hon. Member. I believe that is desirable. It would be undesirable for any Speaker to revert to being an active party politician within the House of Commons. The last Speaker who did so was Mr. Speaker Addington in 1789, and he became Prime Minister. While any change in the identity of that office would be welcome, it is not actually the change that we, on the Liberal Benches, have in mind.
The one good argument against this proposal is that Mr. Speaker is "one of us". My contention is that Mr. Speaker is not one of us. He was, but we have elevated him to sit apart. He has absolute power; we must fight for ours. He lives here; we camp. We can practise our democratic right to be cussed; Mr. Speaker is bound by "Erskine May". He does not dress like us. He does not speak like us.
Another distinction is that upon the dissolution of Parliament we lose our office and Mr. Speaker keeps his. Under the House of Commons (Speaker) Act of 1832 he stays in office until his successor is elected. He can technically occupy the Chair without being elected a Member of Parliament. He is, in short, altogether special because we have elected him to be special.
My friend and neighbour, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), has told me, with his customary courtesy, that he hopes that I will not mind if he opposes the Bill. I have told him that I hope very much that he listens to my arguments. Marshal Clemenceau said:
I have heard speeches that have changed my mind but my vote, never".I hope very much that hon. Members will have listened to my speech. I hope that they will think about the opportunity of creating a special constituency for Mr. Speaker, his to have and to hold, while he has the confidence of the House. When the next Speaker loses his seat at the general election it will be too late. I commend the Bill to the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerI understand that the hon. Gentleman has given notice that he seeks to oppose the measure.
§ Mr. SpearingIt is the custom of the House to allow through a Ten-Minute Bill unless it appears, in principle or practice, to be injurious. I believe that this is one of those occasions. The effect of such a Bill, if it became law, would be contrary to many of the deeply-held principles on which the House operates. I shall seek to show that the arguments of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) fall into that category.
There is, of course, some disadvantage in the present arrangement. That cannot be denied. There is disadvantage, conceivably, in the manner of election, to people who feel that they have no political voice, although how many would feel that that was an acute disadvantage 753 in these days I do not know. However, the electorate might gain by the fact that Mr. Speaker writes to Ministers on their behalf. There is the disadvantage that should not be overlooked for local party activists and the national party. I have no doubt that if two national parties were negotiating about seats that they might conceivably contest, the fact that an additional seat was available might make negotiations a little easier.
The hon. Member for Isle of Ely is wrong, I believe, when he says that Mr. Speaker is not one of us. He is an hon. Member but he is clearly an extraordinary hon. Member in many respects. Mr. Speaker Lloyd's remark in his farewell address to the House on 3 February 1976 has great merit. Mr. Speaker Lloyd said:
I firmly believe that the Speaker should be elected for a constituency, as are other hon. Members, so as to keep personally in touch with the hopes and fears and the personal and individual needs of many thousands of ordinary men and women, meeting them face to face from time to time and to know the problems of the area which he presents."—[Official Report, 3 February 1976; Vol. 904, c. 1140.]That is one of the features of the House. Face to face, we face Ministers. Face to face, we face the Prime Minister. Face to face, we face each individual constituent who wishes to see us. If Mr. Speaker was not appointed by the House to which he was elected an hon. Member, there would be serious problems. Mr. Speaker was in the past appointed by the constitutional Crown of the day. Although he formally seeks that approval from that constitutional Crown today it is the political Crown of the day that is the opponent of the House of Commons as a whole. I do not believe that the political Crown is a five-year elected dictatorship. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) would not agree either. The Prime Minister herself reminded hon. Members only a few days ago that it is certainly not a political dictatorship today.Parliament has its say and Members of Parliament have their opinions. It is essential that the Speaker of the House, who is responsible for its proceedings and gaining the confidence of Members in those proceedings, is not seen in any way, even if mistakenly, as part of the apparatus of the political crown of the day. If he is not appointed by Members of the Parliament over which he presides, who appoints him? He would be a phantom Member for a phantom constituency and in danger of becoming a phantom Speaker. Why is this? Because, contrary to what the political text books may tell us, so much of what goes on here is in a personal, face to face confrontation between Members, and you, Mr. Speaker, have to face all of us.
It is our confidence in your judgment, Mr. Speaker that places you where you are and you continuously have to maintain that confidence of all sides of the House under all conditions. It is not an easy task and the fact that you, Sir, and any of your successors, whether they be ladies or gentlemen, have to face the temper of the times, the political feel of the age, and meet constituents day to day, places you in a position which any Member cannot therefore deny, whereas, if you were appointed by another body, perhaps a body of a very different political or personal complexion than the one over which you preside, there would be inevitable undermining of the authority which we place in your hands.
In 1939 a Select Committee of the House was set up to look into this problem. It had a widespread membership. 754 My esteemed predecessor but one, Mr. Will Thorne, was a Member; so was Mr. Lansbury and Mr. Clynes; Sir Winston Churchill was a Member; it was presided over by Mr. Lloyd George, Liberal. I do not believe that we should take Select Committee reports from the past or, indeed, the present, look at them and accept them, still less when times have changed. But these gentlemen had particularly long foresight. In paragraph 53 of their report, talking about the constituency of St. Stephens, they said:
Finally, the creation of a special constituency of this type would introduce into out political system the new and potentially dangerous principle of indirect election or co-optation.Some Members may favour such a move. I believe that that would be fundamentally wrong. The election of Mr. Speaker by such a method should be cited as a precedent.I conclude by quoting the conclusion of the Select Committee—one to which I hope civil servants and Ministers of all Governments might also pay attention:
Your Committee have, therefore, been reluctantly forced to the conclusion that each of the proposed schemes is beset by disadvantages of such weight as could not fail to produce worse complaints than those it sought to remedy.I oppose the motion.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
§ The House divided: Ayes 15, Noes 252.
755
| Division No. 49] | [4.05 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alton, David | Penhaligon, David |
| Ashton, Joe | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P) | Sandelson, Neville |
| Ford, Ben | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Freud, Clement | Wainwright, R.(ColneV) |
| Grimond, Rt Hon J. | |
| Hawksley, Warren | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Janner, HonGreville | Mr. A. J. Beith and |
| Johnston, Russell(Inverness) | Mr. William Pitt. |
| McNally.Thomas | |
| NOES | |
| Adley, Robert | Canavan, Dennis |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Carlisle, John (Luton West) |
| Alexander, Richard | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Alison, RtHonMichael | Carter-Jones, Lewis |
| Allaun, Frank | Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul |
| Ancram, Michael | Chapman, Sydney |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Clark, Dr David (S Shields) |
| Atkins, Robert(PrestonN) | Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S) |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Clegg, Sir Walter |
| Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN) | Cockeram, Eric |
| Benyon, W. (Buckingham) | Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) |
| Berry, HonAnthony | Cope, John |
| Best, Keith | Corrie, John |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Biggs-Davison, SirJohn | Cryer, Bob |
| Blackburn, John | Cunliffe, Lawrence |
| Blaker, Peter | Cunningham, G.(lslingtonS) |
| Booth, RtHonAlbert | Cunningham, DrJ.(W'h'n) |
| Boothroyd, MissBetty | Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd) |
| Boscawen, HonRobert | Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) |
| Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W) | Dewar, Donald |
| Boyson, DrRhodes | Dixon, Donald |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Dobson, Frank |
| Brotherton, Michael | Dormand, Jack |
| Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n) | Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ. |
| Brown, R. C. (N'castle W) | Dubs, Alfred |
| Browrne, John(Winchester) | Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. |
| Bryan, SirPaul | Eadie, Alex |
| Buck, Antony | Elliott, SirWilliam |
| Budgen, Nick | Emery, Sir Peter |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | English, Michael |
| Ennals, Rt Hon David | Hunt, David (Wirral) |
| Evans, loan (Aberdare) | Jenkin, RtHon Patrick |
| Evans, John (Newton) | John, Brynmor |
| Ewing, Harry | Johnson, James (Hull West) |
| Eyre, Reginald | JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey |
| Fairgrieve, SirRussell | Jones, Barry (East Flint) |
| Farr, John | Jopling, RtHon Michael |
| Faulds, Andrew | Kaufman, RtHon Gerald |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Kerr, Russell |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey | Kershaw, SirAnthony |
| Fisher, SirNigel | Kilroy-Silk, Robert |
| Fitt, Gerard | King, RtHon Tom |
| Flannery, Martin | Lamond, James |
| Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN) | Lang, Ian |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Leighton, Ronald |
| Forrester, John | LeMarchant, Spencer |
| Foster, Derek | Lennox-Boyd, HonMark |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Lestor, MissJoan |
| Fox, Marcus | Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW) |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Litherland, Robert |
| Garrett, John (NorwichS) | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Luce, Richard |
| Golding, John | McCartney, Hugh |
| Goodhew, SirVictor | McCrindle, Robert |
| Goodlad, Alastair | McDonald, DrOonagh |
| Gow, Ian | Macfarlane, Neil |
| Graham, Ted | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
| Grant, George (Morpeth) | MacKay, John (Argyll) |
| Greenway, Harry | McNamara, Kevin |
| Gummer, JohnSelwyn | McQuarrie, Albert |
| Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Marks, Kenneth |
| Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Marlow. Antony |
| Hampson, DrKeith | Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton) |
| Harrison, RtHon Walter | Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole) |
| Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael | Marten, RtHon Neil |
| Hayhoe, Barney | Martin, M(G'gowS'burn) |
| Haynes, Frank | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Mayhew, Patrick |
| Henderson, Barry | Maynard, Miss Joan |
| Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire) | Meacher, Michael |
| Holland, Philip (Carlton) | Miller, Hal(B'grove) |
| Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll) | Mills, lain(Meriden) |
| HomeRobertson, John | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Hoyle, Douglas | Mitchell, David(Basingstoke) |
| Huckfield, Les | Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen) |
| Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Molyneaux, James |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Monro, SirHector |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
§ Question accordingly negatived